Monthly Archives: January 2013

This is a sermon I preached at Kowloon International Baptist. Now I wish to share the process by which it was constructed for those who are interested.

At the exegetical level, this story has been preached to death in allegorical manner. My goal was to stay true to Mark’s narrative flow so that I do not needlessly spiritualized into the text some “deeper” (but very flawed) meaning.

Like most sermons on narratives, this sermon addresses a problem with certain solution. The problem is simply the storm, at least at the outset. The responses by the disciples show their understanding of Jesus and finally Jesus made his verdict.

The problem does not need to be singular. In fact, i noticed three: Jesus’ initiation of their troubles (4.35-36); the storm itself (4.37); their understanding of Jesus as the teacher (4.38)

Jesus’ responded in two step: calmed the storm (4.39); rebuke of the disciples’ lack of faith (4.40). Finally the narrator allowed for the disciples’ voices to come through in 4.41 questioning who Jesus was.

During the exegesis, I notice the text creating a tension between who Jesus was and who the disciples were. In 4.38, they called Jesus “teacher”, a term used often in Mark for partial understanding (5.35; 9.17, 38; 10.17; 20.35 etc.). I thought that this word study has done enough to show the function of “teacher” in Mark to properly interpret the disciples’ seemingly ambiguous statement. The statement could be misconstrued by many interpreters that these disciples thought Jesus could do something. They didn’t! In 4.41, they still asked who Jesus was. At the same time, the disciples were portrayed to be fishermen in their call in 1.16. Could a teacher save a group of fishermen from drowning when the fishermen should’ve known better? That’s the tension in the narrative. As a preacher of this text, I had to resolve this problem.

Struggle over using background studies: In studying the many seafaring tales and similar vocabulary, I have noted that the usage of the seafaring stories often demonstrates the strength of the sailor. By overcoming the sea, the Greeks and Romans had ruled the Mediterranean Sea for a while. My struggle was whether I should talk about background. I left as much out as possible other than answering the main question: who is Jesus? Jesus was Lord over the sea. Perhaps another better way (and I’m open for suggestion) is to come up with an example of lordship rather than dwelling on the imperial background which may alienate those who do not understand academic research.

Another struggle in my preparation was to keep in context of Mark 4 where the most important parable in the entire Gospel occurred. Yet, at the same time, I realize that if i dwell on the context too long, the parable would overtake the entire narrative. Thus, I merely stuck to using it to explain the word “teacher” because the parable was an important teaching. By relating the teacher to today’s world, I felt that it was appropriate to a teaching church like KIBC. This explains why I apply it directly to our church. The disciples were well-taught, but still missed the point. So can church people.

One more struggle I had was pastoral. One kind colleague pointed out to me the risk of misunderstanding about the nature of faith as being recklessly stupid but still expecting God to rescue the fool. I concur with her observation. I think I probably could’ve dwelled more on the fact of Jesus leading the disciples into the disaster. The risk was not avoidable and is part of life. The nature of faith is to face the giant that is not avoidable. The disaster was not created by some stupid irresponsible act of the believer (gosh, I’ve seen countless examples even in recent church culture). I really needed to clarify this point. I will probably do so next time if I have a chance to preach this text again. I will do so by using examples of stupid things Christians do to get themselves in trouble and expecting God to rescue them. On that point, you’re on your own, buddy!

A final struggle over this sermon has to do with how to do the introduction so that it would match the conclusion. I have chosen to use the main idea of identity because at the end, from the reaction of the disciples, the real trouble was identity. I used the story of Joshua Bell the violinist not being identified in the DC subway and the suspense was lifted only at the end. At the introduction, I decided against telling everyone that this was Joshua Bell to keep the suspense. I feel that this was entirely in line with the suspense of Mark over Jesus’ identity. The introduction and conclusion ought to match the mood of the narrative.

I have also analyzed each section of the narrative based on illocutionary aspects of speech-act theory by John Searle, a great tool I should blog more about.

The problem, as I stated above, starts with Jesus’ initiation. I feel that it serves an assertive function (assertive means a common assertion of a fact). The fact Mark brought it out also brought out the propositional assertive I had in my sermon, God could lead us into trouble for the sake of a lesson SOMETIMES. The reason I said “sometimes” is because not every case of trouble in the Gospels was meant to teach a moralizing lesson. This one was.

The second problem was the storm itself causing fear. I feel that this also is an assertive statement about the fact of fear. Thus, my illustration also talks of fear, but I was afraid to guilt trip people because i think the story was not about guilt. Thus, my roller coaster illustration serves to lighten the mood merely to show that fear is natural. I then explore the cause of fear, sometimes benign and often unfound.

I move into the their problem of identifying Jesus as teacher which to the disciples was an assertive statement. Since there’s a tension in the text about Jesus’ identity, I then questioned this assertion, fully knowing the ending still causes puzzling over who Jesus was.

Jesus’ rebuke was his final lesson about faith and fear. Jesus pointed out that faith and fear were related. I rank this as an expressive illocutionary act (an expression towards a proposition). In this case, the expression was towards the proposition the disciples gave about Jesus being a teacher. I had to look for an identity problem similar to false identity. This makes a perfect conclusion because of the final Joshua Bell clip. I chose the Joshua Bell story, not because it fascinates but I also felt that his playing had the highest quality that expressed great emotional impact of “Who can play like that?” I wanted my audience to feel the impact before I gave my conclusion.

I hope my students in preaching can see how this preparation process contained speech act analysis so that both the text and the sermon mood are deliberately affected by the strategy. Hopefully, the final product reached its goal.

Share this:

Like this:

Once in a while, I run across a thought-provoking book or commentary. I think it’s helpful to share it with fellow preachers. Prof. David Pao’s new commentary on Colossians and Philemon, published by Zondervan in 2012, is one such book.[1]

In case any of my readers do not know, Prof. David Pao is the New Testament department head at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, a graduate of Harvard and an expert of Luke-Acts. His claim to fame comes from his innovative dissertation from Harvard on the Isaianic New Exodus reading of Acts. Those who are looking for a good resource on Colossians, David’s book will not disappoint. This commentary is part of a new series called the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. This series features discussion on the structure and the text along with the scholar’s own translation of the Greek text as the basis of the verse-by-verse commentary. Its audience is the preacher and the seminary student.

Starting with the discussion on Pauline authorship, Pao accepts Pauline authorship. Before he defends his position, he clearly lays out the arguments against Pauline authorship in four concise issues.[2] Pao focuses on the theological distinction argument and the problem of not having a clear false teaching in Colossians (i.e. the logic goes something like this; since there’s no clear false teaching, then it must not have been written by Paul). I must admit that having done work on Colossians, I struggle with the latter over the former. The problem of not being able to identify the false teaching has plagued scholars as eminent as Morna Hooker of Cambridge fame.[3] I do however wish that Pao dwells a bit more on the vocabulary problem of Colossians which has been used to argue against Pauline authorship. I suspect that he was under the constraint of publication to shorten his discussion, knowing the ability of Pao to give full analysis on the vocabulary argument.

The argument against Pauline authorship has been aimed at the kind of unique vocabulary in Colossians (and also Ephesians) based on the “authentic Pauline letters” like Romans and the Corinthian correspondences. The problem however is very complicated in that Galatians, commonly taken to be a Pauline letter, also has a large number of unique vocabulary that does not appear in Romans and Corinthian correspondences.[4] In other words, in a small letters, the vocabulary-based authorship discussion is less objective than the way many have done. Pao must have faced the problem of whether to dwell on vocabulary statistics for his audience or to move into a more fruitful discussion of the text. He chose the latter.

One of the big debates regarding Colossians is the nature of the Colossian problem. Pao acknowledges the difficulty of pinpointing opponents based on the existing evidence. Rather than pinpointing the options between pagan philosophy (i.e. middle Platonism), Jewish legalism and mysticism, Pao choses to see syncretism as the issue facing the Colossians and Paul. The system he identifies very rightly is based on the reading of 2.18. Scholars have quite an even split between seeing the angels being the object of veneration (objective genitive) and angels are participants of heavenly worship (subjective genitive). At the end, Pao picks the former by showing first the possible pagan elements of demon worship as part of Asia Minor culture (argued by Clinton Arnold in his work Colossian Syncretism) and the lexical Greek evidence.[5] Evidence of demon worship is no news for Asia Minor, but whether the angel’s worship can be connected to it remains a puzzle for many scholars.

Some theological issues associated with Pao’s exegesis will fascinate academic readers. His understanding of “faith” (e.g. 1.4, 2.12) stays within the more traditional reading of the word instead of the more “in vogue” reading, spearheaded by Richard B. Hays and some New Perspective scholars, that often translates the word “faithfulness.”[6] Lest anyone thinks that Pao is a rigid traditionalist, he does flexibly translate the word based on context. In 1.23, for instance, he allows for “the faith” to be translated as either the faith of the believer (quite tradition here) or the Christian faith (i.e. the Christian religion).[7] By doing this, Pao demonstrates for traditionalists and New Perspective scholars alike that translation is a tricky business and that each case ought to be viewed individually rather than using a metanarrative to translate every instance.

The Christ hymn in 1.15-20 should be of interest to every student of Colossians. Pao deals with the argument of whether the hymn was composed by Paul or by other origin. Scholars have argued back and forth, and Pao’s conclusion is that Paul could have drawn from traditional material. Pao continues to demonstrate quite convincingly that this hymn had a wisdom tradition steep in Judaism. The data presented here strongly implicates that Paul was attacking the syncretistic religion at Colossae with his own wisdom tradition. The next question worth asking would be whether this hymn was a partial reflection of Colossian problem. Pao answers this query in his final reflection on the theology of Colossians. In his final reflection, he notes rightly that Christocentric theology should cover over every part of a believer’s lifestyle, evident in Paul’s usage of the household code. Christology then is not some abstract theology but at every point impacts the believer’s life.

When looking at each part of the letter, Pao is able to engage other parts of the letter to complete his investigation. Pao’s holistic reading of the letter is consistent. Often such careful and close readings yield insights that cannot be gained otherwise. A perfect example is the discussion of 1.24 where he talks about Paul’s suffering as a correction against the opponents’ wrong understanding of the body in 2.23.[8] Normally, interpreters stop at answering the question of how Paul was able to fill up what was lacking in Christ’s affliction without moving towards the function of the entire verse. Pao has done better here and everywhere than many scholars who attempt to read these verses.

Now that I have finished looking at Colossians, we should turn our attention to Pao’s treatment of Philemon. In his interpretation, he attempts to dispel the popular neglect of the letter to Philemon in churches. Philemon is a letter fraught with unclear conjectures and misunderstandings. While many still view Onesimus as a runaway slave, the letter itself does not explicitly states that he ran away. Some chose to see the problem as theft rather than runaway, but the letter does not provide enough data to ascertain whether this was so. Having shown the problem of the runaway thesis, Pao gives the intriguing alternative of Onesimus as a sent slave by Philemon to help Paul with a certain chore and to learn more about the gospel. Pao sees the offense not as running away, but perhaps a less serious crime, such as theft, which Onesimus had committed.

The hermeneutical choice is a matter of method rather than “right and wrong.” The main question Pao has to face is how much of the text and how much of conjecture must the interpreter base his historical reconstruction of the situation in each letter. The answer really depends on how much the interpreter feels the text to have given. I for one still stick to the runaway slave situation on top of a possible theft. To me, we are caught between the devil of conjecture and the deep blue sea of textual allusion. Interpreters have to make a choice somewhere. The difficulty not only presents once again the limitation of any kind of historical criticism but also the masterful subtlety with which Paul wrote this letter.

Pao’s reconstruction of ancient slavery also details some very important distinctions as well as continuities between ancient slavery and colonial slavery in the New World. The relative freedom of ancient slavery is only complicated by the tie the slave had with the master even after manumission.[9] In other words, the freedom was more illusion than reality. The data he presents deserves more exploration for modern readers who might either overemphasize the difference or the similarities between ancient and colonial slavery.

This commentary is overall very helpful in the following ways. First, Pao is able to draw from epigraphic evidence when looking at the background of Colossae. A great example is his explanation for 2.14 where a certain decree and regulation has been nailed to the cross in Christ’s suffering.[10] Second, the biggest asset this commentary possesses is its clarity. The outline and many graphs demonstrating the structure of Colossians will allow students to see how they may do their own studies. Third, a highly beneficial feature of this commentary is its detailed discussion on application. Pao moves beyond the popular proof text approach to scripture. Many preachers who have not gone back to take seminary refreshing course will be challenged by his applications (e.g. a Christocentric ecology). If they are willing to lend Pao a listening ear, they will benefit immensely from reflecting on the way he applies each and every section.

One area the commentary can be fortified is regarding slavery. I may not be too fair to Pao here because my own dissertation involves Roman slavery. Authors such as Keith R. Bradley and Peter Garnsey, both being the academic fixtures in slave studies, deserve a place or even just a passing mention in the bibliography. I am quite pleased however that he has made full use of some of the data from other luminaries of slave studies such as Orlando Patterson and Keith Hopkins. I am also especially pleased with the abundant mention of the literature on principalities and powers engaging scholars old and new alike. The reader cannot understand any new debate regarding the issue without understanding those who had raised the debate to begin with (e.g. Clinton Arnold; G. B. Caird, Hendrikus Berkhof, John Howard Yoder etc.).

Overall, I would highly recommend this commentary for students. If I teach a class on this subject, I would use Pao’s book. Even educated layperson can benefit from Pao’s precise and concise writing style. For the busy pastor, this book will especially benefit because of its help to creating good sermons. Any pastor seeking to preach Colossians and Philemon ought to go out and buy this book right now. Besides being an academic, Pao himself is a preacher and a servant of the church. His application in the “Theology in Application” section shows through the preacher Pao. Many pastors will benefit from the guidance of a preacher-scholar like Pao. His clarity will win the day. Please get this book.

Comparing to my usually short blogs, I wish to reflect together with my readers on the book written by N. T. Wright, Evil and Justice of God. This book is the written version of a series of lectures given in Westminster Abbey where Wright worked in 2003. This reflection will be published in Chinese in Taiwan’s Campus Publisher, one of the good publishers in Asia. As this book is hitting the stand all over Asia this week, I wish to share the English version of my reflection.

Theodicy has been a problem that plagued the church and the Christian faith. Evil can come in all forms whether through human-made or part of the natural cycle. As I’m writing this, New York City had just suffered a storm damage of 33 billion US dollar with people killed and homeless and Israel and Hamas are bombing each other. Meanwhile all over the world, wars rage between people and the innocent are killed by collateral damage. Wright is a realist. He dedicates the book to the memory of some of the most unexplainable suffering in recent years (e.g. 911, hurricane Katrina etc.). These are just some of the most publicized events, not to mention human trafficking and domestic abuse etc. that happen on a daily basis.

The logic of Wright’s book is very simple and clear. He starts by accepting that there is evil in this world, lots of it. He establishes that all is indeed not well with numerous examples dating from the Enlightenment to the modern West. Why are we still surprised when evil hits us? Is it not because we do not expect it to happen to us? But it does, as Wright states with certainty. This evil penetrates every form of human existence, often beyond logical or philosophical explanations. Most people live in the realm of knowing some form of evil exists but that things are basically “all right” in our world, of course, until evil arrives at our front door. This state of perpetual denial causes drastic reaction because of the lack of preparedness.

By pointing out the existence of all sorts of evil, Wright calls us to deliberately take seriously the evil in our world even if evil doesn’t hit us everyday. Wright also suggests that misunderstanding of the purpose of evil is almost as bad as not taking evil seriously enough. The suggestion that somehow evil will produce great heroic character in ordinary people will only go so far when something as horrible as the Holocaust happened. To put God as the originator of such evil to train character is equally unthinkable. At least, character building is not the whole answer to how evil functions. Instead of pointing to God as originator of evil, many believers would either project the evil on others, producing a blame environment, or project evil on themselves, producing depression. Neither reaction deals with the real problem.

When viewing evil, many political solutions have fallen off short. Will allowing the people education and freedom to vote do the trick? Not so according to Wright. In fact, the US has demonstrated that this system has still fallen short with many blind spots, no less than a political desire to be the world’s policeman. Would the pooling together of collective countries with varying interests into a singular rotating government work? The EU has proven to be largely a failure as debates descend into opposite interest groups from different cultures and governments. Biblically speaking, the political powers were a mixture of good and evil, sometimes reaching to the height of evil, evident in the crucifixion of Jesus. Before we come up with a solution, I think many would want to seek an answer as to why evil exists.

For instance, what caused the genocide of Rwanda? Some may blame godlessness in the heart of the people. How then can we explain priests being involved in perpetrating the crimes? Others would blame colonizers who manipulated the power between the Hutus and Tutsies. How then do we explain that other parallel situations did not result in such massive hatred and bloodshed? Others simply blame the devil. But we can’t see the devil! Wright turns to the Bible and finds three explanations that will not explain much of what we consider evil: evil people persecute the righteous, evil from idolatry, the devil. Such explanations do not really say much about what God said about evil. They only confirmed the existence of evil by observations of human authors.

To explain the problem biblically, Wright draws from Genesis where human had allowed evil to come into the world, the flood came largely to wipe out evil, and God called Abraham into His purpose. Whatever the explanation for evil is, God did confront evil in many different ways in the Bible. With the history of Israel moving towards exile, Wright shows that the gentiles were not the only evil people, but also Israel as well. God had to raise a servant to solve part of this problem head on, ultimately in the person of Jesus. In close reading of Job, Wright also points to the problem of evil being solved without Job having entire knowledge. The evil that would be righted by God did not come in the future but in this world. This is an important point leading to Wright’s ethical argument.

Rather than providing pet answers from just Bible or adding philosophy to the mix, Wright suggests practical solutions. In so doing, Wright rejects the Enlightenment program that had eventually created modernism and moves towards an ethical paradigm. The solutions he suggests include the way we relate to one another. The main question he asks is, “What can we do about it?”

Wright suggests some simple solutions that encourage Christian activism. If I were to summarize his suggestion, it would be this, “Don’t just philosophize, do something about the suffering.” His solution is biblically grounded. When he tells Christians to do something about all the suffering, he grounds all such activism in the cross of Christ and resurrection. The way Wright frames the solution brings the balance between two dichotomies. Quite often, people wanted to use structures such as governments to stem the tide of evil. Conversely, they may try to do something on the individual level. Wright suggests the faith community to be involved in bringing a Christ-center solution by each member doing his or her part. In other words, since Christ had accomplished so much on the cross, His people should actively do something about that gospel in this world and not sit and wait for the Second Coming.

What in fact did Jesus accomplish according to Wright? Jesus had taken on the full failure of God’s people in order to bring triumph over evil. Here, Wright is consistent with the classic theory of atonement by telling a story about the triumph of the cross. However we frame atonement, the cross was a present reality for the first-century believers. Wright builds his entire argument not only through the general idea of the atoning cross, but also God’s new creation from the cross, not only in the future but starting from the here and now. The discussion comes out of implications from many parts of Romans, several other biblical books and story of Israel. Through the discussion, Wright brings out the implication for the Christian life. Things are not just made new in the eschaton. They need to be renewed now through the Christian community.

In this accessible work, Wright deals with contemporary issues of global empire, of criminal justice and punishment and of war. By calling our attention to such evils, Wright also sharply condemns the political powers of ignoring their role in these issues as if they do not exist. I say “contemporary” because Wright takes a route that veers off the classical metaphysical discussion about evil. The classical logic goes something like this. If both evil and God exist, then we have two choices in viewing our world. First, we could say that this God is evil (thus unloving) in allowing evil to exist or that He is not powerful to prevent such evil from happening.

In Wright’s preface, he has already stated that his treatment is incomplete at best. The setting for his lectures is the church. However, he has launched against political systems that do not embody the gospel. We have to understand Wright’s setting of political system in England is merged with church. Obviously his analysis and insights may have other applications in different models of government, especially in the relationship between church and state. What is the solution to the problem of evil? The answer depends on what starting we take. Wright takes the practical route built upon the work of Jesus.

The Bible seems to acknowledge evil in every form but also provides no definitive answer other than for God’s people to do some good in this suffering world. One very relevant point about Wright’s solution to the Chinese culture is the “naming” of evil. Wright is not talking about some kind of supernatural declaration against powers in some kind of superstitious prayerful chant. He is talking about confronting those who have wronged others. Confrontation is one of the weakest elements in Chinese culture. The preferred solution usually is to cover over a problem and wishing for it to go away, even within the church. In Wright’s formulation, neglect to confront evil is a kind of evil. Forgiveness does not equal to not naming the evil. Wright uses South Africa’s bishop Desmond Tutu as an example. In the Truth and Reconciliation movement to rebuild South Africa, forgiveness is the key, but naming of evil also assists in the process. Here is where Wright’s distinction between forgiveness and tolerance. Forgiveness actually names the evil and makes the deliberate choice to do the right thing. Tolerance basically brushes evil aside as if it does not matter. Many Chinese churches are quite good at tolerating evil but not so great at forgiveness. Tolerance in such a case cheapens justice and forgiveness. Is harmony at all costs the solution to justice in the Chinese Christian community? This is the question the book posed for our readers.

Share this:

Like this:

Most of us preachers, me included, enjoy talking. If we don’t enjoy talking, we ought to quit. Seriously, I’ve heard from one layman that preachers enjoy talking so much that sometimes they aren’t good listeners. I don’t know if this is statistically true, but some preachers are much more into talking rather than listening. Their love of gab is obvious because after a while, when we go back to a previous discussions, they do not recall anything that was said by others. It was mostly because he was too busy talking the entire time while dominating a discussion. I’ve pastored in the past and have done so on and off on consulting basis with this or that organization. I’ve learned some hard lessons myself, making many mistakes along the way. This is what I learn: preachers need to turn off the homiletic mode when they come down from the pulpit.

Most of us in the academics are very much into facts and logic. Many are borderline obsessive compulsive. Without our OCD, a sickness many of us love, we couldn’t survive our PhD programs. One layman who has become a really good friend told me, “Dr. Sam, I don’t know how you stand the rubbish discussion in Bible studies when you’re an expert in the Bible.” While I can’t consider myself an expert, I’m probably a few steps ahead of my friend. This dear friend is very intellectual and finds most studies hard to swallow. What is my solution?

Whenever I sit in small groups, I tend to be the quiet one. I make a lot of observation about the discussions and very frequently small group discussion can go very much off topic. Sometimes, the interpretation is far off. The worst ones however are the ones that are true in a cliché sort of way but depart very far from the biblical text. Many of the biblical texts they study, I’ve already written articles or books on them. It takes an extraordinary amount of patience at first for me. Then, slowly over time, I see these as pastoral moments of observing how people feel, think and live. Although in my ideal world, the Bible study would be more like the Society of Biblical Literature discussion, but the church is not the SBL. Therefore, instead of jumping in and saying what I really think, I suggest the following steps.

First, you can do nothing but listen. Sometimes by listening, we find out how exactly people think. We can file that information away. The only time I jump in is when blatant heresy that goes either against the denominational teaching of that church or against the wider scope of orthodoxy (e.g. trinity). Other than that, I can let it slide quite a lot. Patience is a virtue developed over time when we have a pastoral heart. We have to understand that people gather on Sunday for 45 minutes or so to listen to our preaching. We already have a captive audience. Even if they don’t want to be there, at least they aren’t at home watching NFL or whatever program that happens to be on for Sunday morning. They’re there to listen. Use that time to educate. The small group or one-on-one pastoral time is not necessarily the best place to educate. Sometimes, lay people just want to air their opinion. The best way to educate them on how to do better Bible reading is to demonstrate by preaching.

Second, you can say something in a roundabout way. Sometimes when the group loses focus, I would take one small point they make that will link to the insight within the text. I think this is a very effective and non-offensive way to bring in your educational moment without losing the pastoral moment. People generally appreciate it unless they’re stuck in a stubborn rut. Usually when people are stuck in that rut, their feelings are attached to the convictions they’ve just shared. Feelings are tender parts of the human psyche. This is why I always think whether feelings are involved before I put my two cents in. Most of the time, because I’m the expert, people don’t really argue, but it doesn’t mean that feelings are not hurt. Some people simply do not enjoy being dressed down in public. In such a case, I just let stuff go.

I hope the above will allow ministers to also learn about being quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to anger. Those are qualities for everyone, even ministers.